Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 12:33pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

In Australia, this trash can freely be purchased by ADULTS, at a rip-off price,in a sealed package to prevent children getting free access to the contents. Now "best of smutt" films are being made from archive films and the makers are ridiculously proclaiming them as ART.The weirdest aspect is that many are defending them . I think it would be best if the the smutt archive films(often labelled as "stag") were placed in a Special Section. As with the Alcohol Sites elsewhere on the Internet, applicants would have to declare that they are over the age of 18 years. This would not stop everything, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:40pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

You actually make some good points there Cashel. I had the same dilemma with a piece on here about homosexuality, well, it was a weblink that "describes how men can overcome homosexual problems." which was located in Open Source books. I too, made the same rant, why is this garbage here, wrong to put it here, etc etc. To which the (I'm sure) lovely Molly at archive.org said:

"The Archive intends to collect all human knowledge and make it available to everyone. We are sorry that this particular piece offends you, but we consider all viewpoints equally valuable."

And I've learned to accept it. People have said to upload some writings on my own. (which actually I havent done)

I suggest the same thing with you in regards to this film. Don't like it, fine. There are a lot of people (including me) who are interested in these films not for the smut value (I of course am not interested ;) ) but to watch this film euphemerally and artistically. Like it or not, this is a historical artifact.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:57pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

SPUZZ In my original post,I advanced a very modest proposal that would NOT restrict or limit the rights of ADULTS. AS I said,later, if supermarts and alcohol companies can do something , then why not the Internet Archive?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 1, 2004 6:37pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

not particularly pointed AT anyone:
The entire internet is filled with smut, and you are offended by this ?

If you are letting children access the internet unsupervised, that's plain irresponsible.

What if your unsupervised child decided to type in one of these search terms or addresses?
pretty girl
peepee
poop
pie
whitehouse.com
password
thumb
teen
wet

etc.. instead of archive.org?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 7:10pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

The Internet Archive should TRY to be a SAFE site for CHILDREN and ofcourse that is NOT possible.. BUT at least it can make access to smut more difficult If my simple idea was adopted , the brats would have to try a little harder.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 1, 2004 11:41pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Actually, the easiest way to make something desirable is to make it forbidden. Put something under lock and key, and children will say, "Hmm, that must be pretty interesting stuff..." and they'll quickly teach themselves to pick the lock.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 5:07am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

you choose NOT to answer my original question that the Internet Archive is doing nothing and officially is saying nothing and I asked why. Plenty of apologists have said that there are plenty of smut suppliers elswhere on the net, BUT surely the Archive should aim a little higher??? revision ..spelling

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 12:07:53

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 4:09pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

you choose NOT to answer my original question that the Internet Archive is doing nothing and officially is saying nothing and I asked why.

Obviously, I cannot answer anything on behalf of archive.org.

I would venture the guess that they, like me, consider this to be very mild vintage erotica, not pornography, and they are not terribly concerned with its effects on children.

Plenty of apologists have said that there are plenty of smut suppliers elswhere on the net, BUT surely the Archive should aim a little higher???

Personally, I like the fact that the archive supplies materials that are both lofty and low-brow, without censorship or restrictions. I even extend my approval of that policy to material which I personally find offensive.

I believe that I have, to the best of my abilities, answered your questions, but again, I have no position of authority within archive.org -- I am just a user of the service, like you.

You should direct further questions on this matter to archive.org.

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:09:22

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:10am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

There's a Maybelline commercial on my tv set right now that's far 'smuttier' than this film. I'm not an 'apologist' or an admin, but really, I think you will have to point me at something "a reasonable person in a reasonable state of mind would consider to be obscene " - a rough paraphraseof the general format for obscenity laws - before I'm going to be able to take this complaint seriously.
There are far more revealing costumes on any public beach in Australia or the US than in this film...
There is far more suggestive behaviour on many children's cartoons...

Perhaps you might view this film again, and point out what part of this you find obscene?

(smut is not thoroughly defined, a dirty spot on a windshield fits the definition of smut, however there are well-settled definitions of obscenity in law... if you are going to try to remove something from the pool of All Universal Knowledge, you would do well to exercise some higher degree of precision than "this is smut" and "delete the smut"

I'm not someone that is lax on the subject of children being exposed to things they oughtn't see, butthis film to me is a good example of exploitation..

I might ask a child who is watching it what they think the elderly lady who was once this film's young star might feel if she knew that people were looking at her acting so ridiculously, half a century later.

I might discuss with a child how little money the model must have been paid, and how much money the makers of the film made...

I might ask if they think the girl in the film would have been proud of the film, or would she feel embarrassed if her mommy and daddy saw the film.

I might discuss the fact that we all make choices,and then must live with what comes of those choices.

I think I could make a much better case for this being an educational film than for it being obscene.

Of course, if you think it's obscene you shouldn't watch it. Did you think you were downloading a sesame street episode? If so, I hope you can get over the harm that seeing the film has done to you. I didn't think it was obscene and I deleted it. You can too.

This post was modified by glenn on 2004-08-02 16:10:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:28am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

YOu are another one speed reads posts and thinks this my chance TO make a MALICIOUS ATTACK> As I explained to the malice driven trafalgar, my only comments on THAT film were..boring ,..cheaply made..stupid...These are also my opinions of persons who waste my time with their malicious attacks....Grow up boy

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:42am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

Jack,

Why do you call people names who try to make points? Malice! Malice! Malice! Instead of insulting people, just defend your positions, and well, learn.

I haven't seen glenn post on the forum before, and attempting to drive him away with your snide comments to 'grow up' isn't really inviting conversation. It's almost driving people away (which may explain why only a handful of people bother to post on here anymore.. It's almost you vs. everyone else) IMHO

Spuzz

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 2:48pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

Jack,

There was nothing even remotely malicious in that post. Or this one. People are not putting words in your mouth, and, as Spuzz says elsewhere (and I agree) you may be driving new participants away with this kind of antagonistic approach.

A difference of opinion is not a personal attack.

I don't want to prevent the free expression of your opinions, any more than I want to censor these films.

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 21:48:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:32am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

And besides, based on Glenn's much contributions to HELPING people on other parts of the archive (mainly on etree,) I totally can see he's harmless.and a really nice guy to boot!

Welcome to the forum Glenn, all the rest of us here don't bite :)

This post was modified by Spuzz on 2004-08-02 17:32:01

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:51am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

SPUZZ ..just quoting a few of GLEN,s words "You might view this film again and point out what part of this film you might find obscentity" This Glen with MALICE and it is a LIE to suggest that I found obscenity in that film . I only said that it was boring cheap and stupid and made no moral judgement revision spelling

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 18:51:17

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 3:20pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Okay, you never said that the film is obscene.

But if you don't think it's obscene, why do you want to prevent children from accessing it?

If you also believe, as you said in earlier posts, that a 9-year-old would find it boring, then why are you concerned with setting up a system to keep him from watching it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:19pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

SPUZZ ..just quoting a few of GLEN,s words "You might view this film again and point out what part of this film you might find obscentity" This Glen with MALICE and it is a LIE to suggest that I found obscenity in that film . I only said that it was boring cheap and stupid and made no moral judgement revision spelling

Cashel, please refer back to the title if your post, which labels the film "mind-less smut".
Arguing with you is so easy it's almost unfair.

And Glenn, please ignore the resident troll. Your posts have been interesting and intelligent, and we could certainly use more of that (as you can see)...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:49pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

trafalgar .. your reply is incomprehinsable and your insult is typical of your abiding dislike of me. Icertainly dislike your opinions and have openly stated this on many occassions revision )spelling but have left some to amuse

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:42:00

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-03 04:49:51

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:59pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Contradictions

Cashel,

Trafalgar's post was not incoherent, it was quite succinct and logical.

You called the film smut in your header of your original post. Do you consider smut to be obscene? If not, what is your definition of smut? The OED says smut is "Indecent or obscene language," and dictionary.com says that it is "Obscenity in speech or writing; Pornography." Smut is obscenity, and you called the film smut. Therefore, based on the definition, you called the film obscene.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 3, 2004 11:40am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Sorry, my "if" should have read "of".
Anyway, the point has already been made: Jack called the film smut. Some people disagree. No big deal.
And really I swear, Jack, I bear you no malice. Sometimes I don't think you're for real...but malice? No.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:42am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

What I say on the internet is for everyone to see. You're welcome to disagree with me, but I haven't any malice in me, and I think I'm pretty careful not to hurt feelings or to state my opinion's as fact.

The mere factthatI have replied toone of your posts, if I did, should not make you feel like my comments arepointed atyou, whoeveryou are..(I didn't even bother to see who it was that lashed out at me, as it was obviously someone who misunderstood me or just needs to lash out at someone.

shrug

I don't know where anyone would get the idea that I was attacking them, I just was expressing an opinion about the appropriateness of hosting that particular file.

I think it's obscene to turn on the tv and see a picture of a person's leg with no person attached to it, laying in the dirt.

I don't think a video of a girl in a bra qualifies as obscenity in this community. Meaning a fairly academic and mature level archive attempting to become the modern equivalent of the Library at Alexandria.

...as for 'growing up', I have grown up about as far as I ever will, and in fact seem to be growing back down now. And out around the middle as well.

And I'd like to point out that I don't hide behind a pseudonym, glenn is in fact my full legal name. I think one should be willing to own up to what you say on the net, and think before posting to an archive that will in all likelihood last longer than all of us.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:28am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

Why did you tell me"You might view this film again and point out what partof this film you might find obscenity"(your actual words) .As I had NEVER expressed moral judgment on this film, I had no cause but to object.. (TRIVIA Seeing girls in bras does NOT disturb me)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:08pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn is a malicious boy, let's drive him out

sorry,that was a misunderstanding, on someone's part, I did say substantilly that,but it was directed at that other guy who did say it.

Maybe I 'replied'by clicking a link at the wrong level of the hierarchy, or maybe you did,or whatever...it doesn't really matter to me, does it matter to you? We could maybe sort it out if it seems important.
I'm more than willing to go with the 'glenn is an ignorant newbie' theory,and move on to something fun or go import the 3 string cheese incident shows I just uploaded.

Hey,have you seen the movie Pipe Dream?. If you have,what did you think of it?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:27pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn now OK thanks

Partly my faulty. I saw the Siggraph movie and still find it fascinating . I am leaving the feature oview Forum. There is too much hassle and waste of time. I have read many of your posts in other forums and have found them intelligent and informative. (at least my time in this forum has polished my debating skills so not entirely wasted

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:49pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Debating Skills

...at least my time in this forum has polished my debating skills so not entirely wasted...

ROTFL!



Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:46pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn now OK thanks

No worries. I'll see you around.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:01am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Glenn SEE my reply to TRAFALGAR IDID NOT SAY IT

see my reply to SPUZZ under his heading

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 2muchtv Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:36am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Why use labels? A historical film, preserved in the archives, is simply a tiny window into the world at the time the film was made. It's importance lies as much in what was behind the camera as in what was in front of the lens. The film in question is, in my opinion, profoundly historically significant because of what it says about how people felt about sex, women and movies at the time it was made. Several points to consider in the interest of scholarly discussion include:

The idealized image of feminine beauty at the time, as compared to that ideal in different eras. What attributes of a woman are considered by society to be attractive change radically from year to year, and from decade to decade. This film provides and interesting review of the ideal of that era.

The concept of volition as it relates to a woman, her relationship to her own body, and what constitutes modesty. In this film, the woman is a passive receiver of external action - the waves disrobe her, she does not (at least initially) disrobe herself. This is extremely significant to a student of women’s studies and the era of feminine mystique (the approximate time this film was made).

The concept of what constituted risqué entertainment at the time. Compare the scenes in this film to a heavy metal music video (accessible to children of all ages, by the way, on MTV and other venues), to the love scenes in a current day time dramatic serial (“soap opera”) or to contemporary pornographic film.

The degree to which content was expected to carry production values (or the lack there of). Note that in the film in question, the simple act of a supposedly inadvertent exposure of the female breast was expected to carry the film, and the audience had little of no expectation of any additional entertainment value for the price of attending the film.

I would be very interested to hear others’ observations in these, or similar, areas of study.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:24am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Very worthwhile post.

patricularly
QUOTE "The degree to which content was expected to carry production values (or the lack there of). Note that in the film in question, the simple act of a supposedly inadvertent exposure of the female breast was expected to carry the film, and the audience had little of no expectation of any additional entertainment value for the price of attending the film. "
END QUOTE

In much the same way, special effects, explosions, and chase scenes are expected to 'carry' some modern films.

One or more of today's leading television shows consist primarily of not-particularly-good-looking people exposing themselves to the audience and shouting obscenities at each other -all of which is censored and never seen or heard by the viewer- while bemused security stagehands gently attempt to keep them from injuring themselves or others.

Apparently no further entertainment is expected by the audience than the fact that there is violence and obscenity on the show, regardless of the fact that the viewing audience never sees or hears it.

Perhaps future historians will be amused at how easily we were 'entertained' in the Twentieth Century.

This post was modified by glenn on 2004-08-02 18:24:38

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 4:12pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Good points all, and I'll reply at length later -- I'm off to the theater to see a real movie. The kind with sprocket holes and stuff.

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:12:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Marysz Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:17am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

As a parent, I can see why people might want to restrict access to some of the racier films in the Archive, but what kid today wants to watch anything in black and white? What happens when we're not not around any more to appreciate all these old films, smutty or not? Then they really will be orphan films.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 12:56pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Thank you TO MARYSZ

MARY an excellent post. I have NOT objected to the old archive films,as they are valuable in giving an insight into the minds of people past (in this case,it is probably a minority ). revision (heading)

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 19:56:43

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 2muchtv Date: Aug 2, 2004 1:45pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Value

Perhaps by reflecting on the films of the past, whatever their content, we can find our way to becoming a more constructive society, and to let go of the kinds of personal shortcomings and societal incongruencies that sometimes lead to the pursuit of the kinds of entertainment that might not be in the best interest of a sustainable, equitable society where all people are treated with respect and kindness. What do you think?

This post was modified by 2muchtv on 2004-08-02 20:38:51

This post was modified by 2muchtv on 2004-08-02 20:45:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 4:29pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Marysz, as a parent, how do you deal with these issues? (Or have they even come up yet?)

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:29:03

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Marysz Date: Aug 3, 2004 9:46am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Thanks for the compliment, Cashel! As for what I do, I think we parents have to resign ourselves to the fact that our kids are going to be exposed to a barrage of unacceptable images and ideas. All we can do is talk it over with them, so that they feel their feelings are acknowleged. If only the world were more like a Coronet film—full of caring parents and teachers and loads of wholesome activities for kids.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 3:35pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Okay, I'm back from the movie. The Stepford Wives, which kind of, sort of fits in with this discussion of idealized women. Also, Prelinger Archive fans will doubtless recognize many of the film clips used in the title sequence...

The concept of volition as it relates to a woman, her relationship to her own body, and what constitutes modesty. In this film, the woman is a passive receiver of external action - the waves disrobe her, she does not (at least initially) disrobe herself. This is extremely significant to a student of women’s studies and the era of feminine mystique (the approximate time this film was made).

The disrobing happens over and over, and she has to pretend to be surprised by it multiple times. While her smile appears genuine, the repetition struck me as both artless and a bit creepy. I liked the woman in front of the camera, and disliked the man behind it. (Could have been a woman, but I doubt it.)

Reply to this post
Reply

Poster: 2muchtv Date: Aug 2, 2004 4:48pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Volition

[Quote]...the repetition struck me as both artless and a bit creepy...[Quote]

One of the most fascinating aspects of the film, in my opinion. Today, we find the scene to be droll in the extreme, yet at the time the film maker felt it was the best way to present the subject. Was it because of the fragile nature of the male psyche of the time? The sense that a woman had to be powerless to be attractive? Did the film maker fear that if the woman removed her top herself the audience would become fearful of the woman character exerting control over her own state of dress? Would the film had been less titillating to it's intended audience?

To me, the movie is a fascinating insight into the tensions that existed at the time between man, woman, society and power, and a great addition to he archives.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 3, 2004 2:08am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Volition

A good filmmaker would have taken multiple shots of the bikini top coming off, and picked the best one. A fetishist just wants to see it happen again and again. Hence the artlessness and the skin-crawling factor.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:36pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Actually, I'll defend it, but only if you promise not to call me stupid again.

Seriously -- if you want to discuss why I am not offended by this material; why I find it charming when compared to modern pornography; why I think it's an interesting window into the prudish, repressive, hidden sexual history of my country, I'm totally willing to discuss this film with you.

But only if you are really curious. If you just want to get upset, I'm really not in the mood to do the upsetting.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:49pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Address the problem of access to this material by children. The super-marts and alcohol companies are trying to limit access by children to unsuitable material. Is it time for the Internet Archive to follow their examples.??

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 1, 2004 3:01pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

If (and this is a wildly hypothetical situation) I had a heterosexual son in his teens, and he were downloading stag films from archive.org, I think the best thing I could do would be to give him some privacy. (And maybe later, some tips on talking to REAL girls.) There are FAR worse things to worry about -- sexual predators, for example -- than such mild skin flicks.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:51pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

What if I called you stupid, Ridetheory? What would you do then? Huh? What would you doooo huh?

LOL

This post was modified by Spuzz on 2004-08-01 21:51:33

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 7:54pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: DROWNING with SPAM

trivialising becaause he does not like the issue

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 1, 2004 2:59pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

I actually AM stupid, I just don't like to be reminded of it!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 1, 2004 7:58pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: antics

fill it with spam , so my post can be trivialised

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 1, 2004 11:39pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: antics

I don't understand this statement. "Spam" is junk email.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:30am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: spam: alternate meanings ...(was Re: antics)

In addition to the common menaing of spam as junk email, there is currently another sister meaning to the term 'spam' which would be something along the lines of posting many many posts on the same subject, in different threads (cross-posting spam)
as well as posting numerous short posts to the same forum with nothing cogent to say (spamming the forum), posting non sequitur replies, that have nothing to do with the putative topic being discussed (off-topic spam).
and also, there are the related terms 'troll' and 'trolling', which combine the noun and verb form in their meaning, hence 'one who lurks on a forum fishing for controversy'. Trolls are generally despised by those who recognise their trolling behaviour patterns, yet are rarely 'called on it', as conventional wisdom holds that to 'feed the trolls' is to encourage them.

I think though, that what is meant in this case by 'spam' is "burying the main subject of a thread in a flurry of irrelevant replies.

And an on topic post which is relevant to the discussion and is not intended to arouse ire can be considered spam if it deflects the topic sufficiently this post is a possible example of spam.

Of course spam is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's meat is another man's metaphor. ;-)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 12:59pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Thank you TO GLENN

GLEN thank your excellent post. It was most welcome as I am now engaged in the tiresome task of fending of "replies" which NEVER answer any of the points raised in my original post, but try to deflect its validity by giving unrelated opinions. ( revision spelling and heading)

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 19:00:34

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-08-02 19:59:41

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 4:12pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious

Okay, I can accept another definition of "spam", and admit I was ignorant of it.

And, in spite of what he claims, I have directly and to the best of my ability addressed Cashel's concern about access to these films by children. I do not think it is important to restrict access of these films to children. I have no desire or authority to make any of his proposals into reality. He doesn't agree with my opinion and that's fine.

Meanwhile...

Cashel, you keep spinning words around and then you accuse OTHERS of putting words in YOUR mouth? (At least half of what you accuse others of saying they simply DID NOT SAY! You read something into it that WASN'T THERE!) You accuse OTHERS of filling the forum with useless posts? You throw hissy fits, and then accuse OTHERS of being childish?

The irony of this is just staggering!

This forum degenerates into a whirlpool of noise constantly, and YOU are the center of it every time. Do you think that maybe YOU might be the cause of it? You are, after all, the common denominator EVERY SINGLE TIME IT HAPPENS...

This post was modified by ridetheory on 2004-08-02 23:12:25

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 2, 2004 9:39pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious

I'm sorry.

to be fair, the very nature of the 'thread' system used on these boards can bea bit confusing, and sometimes it might be the case that replies can be made at 'inappropriate' levels of the thread hierarchy...
thank you,
... this kind of thing is easy to happen.. here's some suggestions to prevent friction and promote lubrication on this type of forum.

1) discuss concepts, not people on the forum, even mentioning another person can be misconstrued as an attack

2)if you are specifically addressing an individual, usage such as "(@ glenn)you still believe in the tooth fairy?really?" can serve to explicitly disambiguate who your addressee is...
3)if it seems as if someone is making some sort of personal attack on you, they likely aren't... ignore it

4)if someone makes it plain they are attacking you, ignore it even more, nothing is servedby giving an attacker the only thing they could possibly want from you,a response.

5)be cordial to even the biggest jerk, if this doesn't work be amazingly cordial. Nobody who is spoiling for a fight can lastlong int he face of implacable calm.

6)periodically, start a random post with the words thank you, or I'm sorry. These words have a positive effect even when used at random moments.

I really appreciate your help. Thanks a lot!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:06pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: GLENN I will follow your guidlines THANKS

and I hope that the other forum members will also do so.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ridetheory Date: Aug 2, 2004 11:53pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious

Glenn,

Very sane suggestions. Bear in mind that certain users of this forum will agree to them, but that they have amusingly short memories. The slightest disagreement will begin the whole cycle again.

Mark my words.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: glenn Date: Aug 4, 2004 12:01pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: shrug (was Re: Now this post, I must admit, is a bit malicious)

shrug

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 1, 2004 11:12pm
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: Why defend mind-less SMUT??

Believe it or not, I actually looked up the word "smut" (yeah, I have some time on my hands), and the relevant definitions are:

2a) Obscenity in speech or writing.
b) Pornography.

The film is suggestive, not pornographic. Here in the States it would barely get an "R" rating, if that.

If I ever have a son, I'm going to put this film on a loop and project it over his crib. (Sorry, just trying to get a flame war going! Ha ha)

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Aug 2, 2004 5:12am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: TRAFALGAR please dont put words inmy mouth I DID NOT SAY IT

I have merely said that the film which is the subject of this week,s forum is boring, stupid and cheaply made. These are statements that could made about much of Hollywood,s current output. I am certainly NOT suggesting that Hollywood be shut down.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: summerseve Date: Aug 2, 2004 10:21am
Forum: movie_of_the_week Subject: Re: TRAFALGAR please dont put words inmy mouth I DID NOT SAY IT

Words in your mouth? You called it "smut", I looked up the word and said it wasn't.
Shutting down Hollywood? As usual, you confuse me endlessly.
In any case, it's a cute, harmless little film, and I like it.